New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-08-02
NEW PUBLICATIONS.
,,r ..rp,c.N nEMocRAr1C PRINCIPLE.


TIE AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLE
OoNsEorIcuT s,aay S & cs%n' Com
.nyyx,..iybs ssrisal I6mo PIP. xiv, 4o9 hooHn''n
Mifhin d Co. -. r,.sor
Johnstons valuable and spirited Voiume "io ..O
,-h;ch demonstrate the precedence of Connecucu'
q, .hs establishment of the democratic principle
~ government which now makes the essentiai
,..tu,e Of the American plan, and those which
.xbibit the influence of the Connecticut town.
system in the development OF our national theory
NJ local self-rule confined with federal authority
Tn the prominence given to these important points
the author shows an appreciation not only oil the
intrinsic character of his subject but OF the oes'
uscs Of the excellent and we'll edited series ia
which his book takes high place. Perhaps m'
contrast between the Massachusetts and Conhect
icut ideas of popular government is s'r'ineu -
little hut it is not essentially UNFAIR.
customary to speak of the compact In .ne 49,
NJ the Mayaower as the first manifestation VI
American democracy although IL was o'''y "
maI<e-sbift arrangement for an emerseh's'
declared no political principle anu io,ina'
recognized the King as the source Oh an "u,"o~
The Connecticut colony on the other n"ni wv"
cts existence to the strictly independent "oUoi "
settlers who moved into territory ZOE "n,o
they had no patent, organized themselves WIZ.
no reference to any other authority IMAM 'hcir
own, and proclaimed both in word ana acuoh
that to the people belonged the choice Oh 'hcir
rulers by Gods own allowance" 1t must De
remembered, however, that the practice Oh Massa-
chusetts was not at oil in harmony WIN INC
loyal profession of the MayhOwer compact. lhat
was little more than figure of speech OF a KIM
which abounded in all charters, grants, petiuohs
and other like documents of the day, and II gave
no indication OF the spirit OF the signefs III
the practical disregard of royal authority Massa-
ehusctts certainly fell behind no other colony
In due time the Connecticut towns found IL con-
venicnt to secure their privileges by royal
charter. and their address to Charles H. was
almost fulsome in its professions of loyalty and
obedience, and it's excuses for not sooner begging
the Kings sanction for their form of government
The strictly popular agreement under which they
had been living for twenty-five years was as much
a malke-shift as the instrument signed on board
the Mayfower.
Nevertheless the sense of democratic equality
was undoubtedly much stronger and more logical
in Connecticut than in the parent colony. Inc
ideal of the founders Of Massachusetts, was
tbeocracy The State and Church were to be
inseparably united the light OF suffrage was OILY
to be exercised ~ a small minority of the elect;
all concerns temporal and spiritual we're to be
regulated by the ministers; the privileges of free
men were to be cautiously bestowed, and only on
those whose conduct and belief met with clerical
approval This system was finally Overthrown,
not by the people, but by the crown, ana not
until that change took place could the democratic
spirit in Massachusetts, find full growth. Con-
necticut was founded by dissatisfied Massachu-
sctts colonists, and Professor Johnston maintains
l. = xnf fl,a moi VI
purpose of theirremoval was to establish true
popular institrtons which they could not secure
at home When the three river towns, Hartford,
Windsor and Wethersfield, formed what became
known as the Connecticut colony, they dispensed
with the ecclesiastical restriction upon suffrage,
and founded their commonwealth upon the inner
emit right of every man 10 an equal share in the
government. Three years later 1880 in popu-
lar convention they adopted constitution which
Professor Johnston calls the first written con-
stitution in the modern sense of the term, as
permanent limitation governmental power,
known in history, and certainly the first Ameri-
can constitution of government to embody the
democratic idea" The charter of 1862 changed
this constitution in no essential particular, and
thus in all its important provisions it continued
to stand, system Of complete popular control,
and of strict limitation Of the power of the rulers.
The New-IIaven colonv adopted the exclusive
theocratic principle, combining the right of voting
and holding Office to church members; but it is
significant that this limitation was voted by
nearly unanimous popular voice, the majority
deliberately divcsting themselves of political
power Ecclesiastical government lasted until
New-Hayen was absorbed In Connecticut under
the charter of Charles Ii.
The American town system is best illustrated
in Connecticut because there the town was recog-
nized from the first as the independent political
unit from which the commonwealth was
stituted by confederation. When the assembly
of planters of the three river towns arranged
their scheme of government. they treated the
towns complete pre-existent organizations,
with self-derived powers. They were such in
fact as well as in theory. 1t is true that the
general court afterward passed a series Of
orders defining the duties and privileges Of the
towns, and this action has been called an sin
corporation But our author maintains that it
was no more than passing a bin Of rights to
define powers which the towns enjoyed already.
His explanation is open to question. 1t seems
much more likely that the Connecticut settlers
were too busy with material problems to study
the philosophy Of politics very closely and that
they adopted whatever plan was practically
convenient and in harmony with their general
ideas Of popular rights without rejecting how
posterity would seek to explain it. Yet IT is
true that in effect they regarded the town and
not the commonwealth as the source of authority
and that there is good reason for regarding
them the foremost representatives of that
union of the democratic and federative ideas
which now distinguishes the American republic.